masseffectfandomcom-20200222-history
User talk:58.84.139.156
Hi, welcome to Mass Effect Wiki! Thanks for your edit to the Kahlee Sanders page. ' '. It's an easy way to keep track of your contributions and helps you communicate with the rest of the community. Be sure to check out our Style Guide and Community Guidelines to help you get started, and please leave a message on my talk page if I can help with anything! -- SpartHawg948 (Talk) 13:01, May 3, 2010 Firefly Yes, I have seen Firefly. It's one of my favorite shows. I was one of the fans who worked hard to try and keep it from being canceled, to no avail. I have the complete series, Serenity, the documentary, I've even dabbled a little bit with the Firefly RPG. That being said, River Tam and Gillian Grayson are not almost identical. Tam was a normal, outgoing, gregarious child before entering the Institute, a facility with the sole purpose of experimenting on her to turn her into a weapon. She entered the Institute willingly, with the consent of her parents, and was later broken out by her brother. Gillian Grayson was an autistic child (meaning that many of the personality mannerisms which seem similar are not, as Grayson's are a result of biology, while Tam's are a result of conditioning). Grayson was sent to the Ascension program without her consent by her 'father' (who really wasn't her father at all) and was secretly (without the knowledge of all but one of the staffers, as opposed to the Institute) experimented on for reasons known only to the Illusive Man. There are superficial similarities, but that is it. If any ME character resembles River Tam, it isn't Gillian Grayson, it's Jack. Now, as for Kahlee Sanders, there is nothing (other than a similar name) to suggest a link of any sort to Kaywinnit Frye. This has already been discussed on the talk page. There is as much reason to assume a link between Kahlee Sanders and Kaywinnit 'Kaylee' Frye as there is to assume a link between Commander Shepard (aka John Shepard) and Colonel John Sheppard of Stargate Atlantis or Jack Shepard of Lost, which is to say, none. SpartHawg948 07:28, May 4, 2010 (UTC) Battle Rifles A battle rifle is a large-caliber rifle that has longer range than an assault rifle, but shorter range than a sniper rifle (we're talking effective range, not actual range of the bullet). This is a fact. You allege that this is not, and that a battle rifle is simply a large-caliber rifle, while "a designated Marksman covers in between Rifelmansic and Sniper". This argument is irrelevant to this discussion, as it deals with tactics, not technology. Nowadays, when the vast majority of armed forces have replaced battle rifles with shorter range assault rifles, yes, this may be the case. However, this is not an issue of tactics, it's an issue of whether or not a battle rifle is a large caliber weapon with longer range than an assault rifle, and shorter range than a sniper rifle. It is. The larger caliber round gives longer range at the expense of recoil, resulting in reduced rate of fire and reduced effectiveness at close range due to the length and weight of the gun. When battle rifles had their heyday, during World Wars I and II, this was not an issue, especially in WWI, where most engagements were either at extreme long range or extreme close range. During World War II, however, the Germans decided to bridge the gap between small-caliber submachine guns, effective only at close range, and large caliber battle-rifles, only effective at long ranges. The result was a mid-caliber, mid-range weapon which they called the sturmgewehr, or 'assault rifle'. Whether or not battle rifles are used today to cover the ranges between assault rifles and sniper rifles is irrelevant. All that matters is whether the statement that battle rifles are used at ranges in excess of that of an assault rifle, but less then that of a sniper rifle, is true, and it is. Kindly do the prerequisite research before deleting valid content out of hand. Additionally, after doing a little more research, I learned something very interesting. The Designated Marksmen you mentioned? They use battle rifles. The M14 and the USMC Designated Marksman Rifle (itself a modified M14) are the primary weapons of the Designated Marksman, at least in the United States Military. And what is the M14? Why, it was the last Battle Rifle issued to the US Military before we switched over to assault rifles with the M16. So, in a way, you used evidence that supported the piece you removed... to justify removing it. How perverse. SpartHawg948 17:06, May 5, 2010 (UTC) Doing Research You instructed another user to do research concerning the Assault Rifle vs Battle Rifle issue. You said "Do research. Battle rifle = 7.62mm, Assault Rifle = 5.56mm in NATO. Same role, different size". There is, of course, nothing accurate about that statement. Let's review. First, you claim that battle rifles use 7.62mm ammunition. This is false because battle rifles are not all the same. Many battle rifles use ammunition other than 7.62mm. Here are but a few examples: the FG 42 (7.92mm), the FM57 (6.5mm), the Mondragón (7.92mm), the Olin/Winchester Salvo Rifle (5.56mm), and the SIG SG 510 (7.5mm). So, as you can see, not all battle rifles are 7.62mm. Next, you claim that Assault Rifles are 5.56mm in NATO. This is false for two reasons. First, you only include NATO rifles. That is arbitrarily narrowing the field in a manner which you thought would support your claim. Only, it didn't. The second reason it's false? Even in NATO armed forces, there are assault rifles that use rounds other than 5.56mm. The Czech Republic, a NATO nation, uses the Vz. 58, an assault rifle that fires 7.62mm ammo. Poland, another NATO nation, uses the AK-47 and derivatives. The AK-47, the most mass-produced assault rifle in history, fires 7.62mm ammo. That right there shoots down your point, doesn't it? The most common assault rifle in the world uses 7.62mm ammo. Estonia, another NATO member, uses the IMI Galil, an Israeli assault rifle, in both the 5.56 and 7.62mm variants. That's three NATO countries right there whose standard assault rifles don't use 5.56mm, and I didn't even check them all. I'm sure you could at least add Croatia and Romania to the list. And in fact, I know you can add Albania, as they use a Chinese knock-off of the AK-47. Now, as to your final point, "Same role, different size", this is, of course, false. Battle rifles, as I stated before in my previous post, are for longer range engagements than are assault rifles. And ARs are well suited to close-in combat, where BRs are no good. So please, take your own advice. Do research. SpartHawg948 07:16, May 6, 2010 (UTC) Please Stop Additionally, you have been advised above as to why the edits you are making concerning Gillian Grayson and the M-15 Vindicator are wrong. If you dispute this, you need to actually make a case, using facts. Don't just undo edits and say (in effect) 'nuh-uh. I don't care what you say, I'm right, you're wrong!' I have provided lengthy refutations of your edits above (as well as on the Talk:Gillian Grayson page), so the ball is in your court to defend your edits. Further reversions without any justification, and after being asked to cease and desist and to provide proof, will be construed as vandalism. And vandalism is not well received on this wiki. SpartHawg948 07:20, May 6, 2010 (UTC)